ArticleNeurological research and practice2020
Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the "standardized endoscopic swallowing evaluation for tracheostomy decannulation in critically ill neurologic patients".
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability and validity of the DEFISS score for predicting post-extubation dysphagia and dysphagia-related reintubation after stroke.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Decannulation ahead: a comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework for tracheotomized neurological patients.Neurological research and practice · 2025Review
- A Simplified Protocol for Tracheostomy Decannulation in Patients Weaned off Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2024Article
- [Tracheostomy managment and tube weaning within a framework of dysphagia intervention].Der Nervenarzt · 2023Review
- Endpoints in Dysphagia Trials. Comment on Speyer et al. Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials-Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Oropharyngeal Dysphagia and Impaired Motility of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract-Is There a Clinical Link in Neurocritical Care?Nutrients · 2021Article
- Standardized Endoscopic Swallowing Evaluation for Tracheostomy Decannulation in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients - a prospective evaluation.Neurological research and practice · 2021Article
- Dysphagia in Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019-Potential Neurologic Etiologies.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- Therapy of Dysphagia by Prolonged Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation (Phagenyx) in a Patient with Brainstem Infarction.Brain sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemoval of a tracheostomy tube in critically ill neurologic patients is a difficult issue, particularly due to the high incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia. For an objective evaluation of decannulation readiness the "Standardized Endoscopic Swallowing Evaluation for Tracheostomy Decannulation in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients" (SESETD) - a stepwise evaluation of 'secretion management', 'spontaneous swallows' and 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' - has been introduced. With the recent study detailed data on inter-rater and test-retest reliability are presented.
methodsTo obtain inter-rater reliability levels both in a group of raters with at least 5 years of experience ('experts') and in a group of raters with no or only minor experience using the SESETD ('non-experts'), for each single item of the protocol and the sum score α-, respectively κ-levels were determined. The 'experts' assessed the same videos after a four-week interval to determine test-retest reliability. Ten videos from tracheostomized neurological patients completely weaned from mechanical ventilation were assessed independently by six 'experts'. 27 'non-experts' applied the SESETD on 5 videos from the same patient population after introduction to the protocol in a one-hour workshop.
resultsFor the items 'secretion management' and 'spontaneous swallows' α-levels were identified at > 0.800 both in the group of 'experts' and 'non-experts'. With regard to the item 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' in both groups, the α-level was ≥0.667. With κ-levels of 1.0 for 'secretion management', 0.93 for 'spontaneous swallows' and 0.76 for 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' test-retest reliability showed at least substantial agreement for each item. Intraclass correlation coefficient for the sum score was excellent in both groups (α ≥ 0.90).
conclusionsThe SESETD demonstrates good to excellent agreement for each single item included as well as the sum score in experienced and unexperienced raters supporting its usefulness for implementation in daily clinical routine and as an outcome measure for clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.